[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52657-52668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26108]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2001 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 52657]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 55

RIN 3150-AG40


Operator License Eligibility and Use of Simulation Facilities in 
Operator Licensing

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
regulations to permit applicants for operator and senior operator 
licenses to fulfill a portion of the required experience prerequisites 
by manipulating a plant-referenced simulator as an alternative to 
manipulation of the controls of the actual nuclear power plant. This 
change, along with other amendments contained in this rule, takes 
advantage of improvements in simulator technology and reduces 
unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective November 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The final rule and any related documents are available on 
the NRC's rulemaking Website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. For 
information about the interactive rulemaking Web site, contact Carol 
Gallagher, 301-415-5905 (electronic mail: [email protected])
    Copies of certain documents related to this rulemaking may be 
examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD. These same documents may be viewed and downloaded 
electronically via the rulemaking Web site. Documents created or 
received at the NRC after April 1, 2000, are also available 
electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, 
the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agency Document Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) that provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. For more information, contact the NRC Public Document 
Room (PDR) Reference staff at 301-415-4737 or toll-free at 1-800-397-
4209, or by e-mail at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Trimble, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, telephone 301-415-2942, or by electronic mail to 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
amending the regulations that govern operators' licenses to allow 
applicants for operator and senior operator licenses to fulfill a 
portion of the required experience prerequisites by manipulating a 
plant-referenced simulator as an alternative to manipulation of the 
controls of the actual nuclear power plant. This final rule also 
removes requirements for facility licensee certification of their 
simulation facilities and routine submittal of reports to the NRC for 
review that identify any uncorrected performance test failures and a 
related schedule for correction. Continued assurance of simulator 
fidelity is provided because a facility licensee must: (1) Conduct 
performance testing and retain results for four years; (2) correct 
modeling and hardware discrepancies and discrepancies identified from 
scenario validation and from performance testing; (3) make the results 
of any uncorrected performance test failures available onsite; and (4) 
maintain the provisions for license application, examination, and test 
integrity consistent with Section 55.49. The final rule also revises 
two definitions and adds clarity to the regulations by relocating 
language relating to the use of a simulation facility to a new section 
dedicated to ``Simulation Facilities.'' Lastly, the final rule 
facilitates voluntary licensee transition to an improved approach to 
simulator testing as described in an American National Standards 
Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) standard, ANSI/ANS-3.5-
1998, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training and 
Examination.'' Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.149, ``Nuclear Power 
Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Training and License 
Examinations,'' (RG 1.149) endorses this standard and is being 
published in conjunction with this final rule.

Background

    Prior to 1987, the Commission's regulatory position was that 
simulator experience was not necessarily equivalent to actual nuclear 
power plant operating experience. The industry and the public supported 
this position, citing inherent problems and uncertainties in simulator 
technology, and the few plant-specific simulators in existence at the 
time.
    The Commission became increasingly aware of the need to update its 
operator licensing requirements, in particular the need to clarify the 
extent to which simulators may be used in the operator licensing 
process. In 1987, the Commission amended substantial portions of 10 CFR 
part 55 to (1) formalize the requirement for license applicants to 
perform five significant manipulations to control reactivity or power 
level on the actual plant as a prerequisite for license eligibility; 
(2) require that every operating test be administered in a plant walk-
through and a simulation facility that was either approved by the 
Commission or certified by the facility licensee as a plant-referenced 
simulator; and (3) require submittal of periodic performance tests on 
the simulation facility, and maintenance of records pertaining to the 
conduct of these tests and the results obtained. (See 52 FR 9453; March 
25, 1987). Consequently, facility licensees began to develop simulators 
for operator licensing and training which were certified by licensees 
to be in accordance with national standard ANSI/ANS-3.5-1985, ``Nuclear 
Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training.'' Eventually, 
every facility with a current Part 50 license procured a plant-
referenced simulator and submitted a certification for its use to the 
Commission.
    Since 1987, technology has allowed advances in the simulators' 
computing capability, model complexity, and fidelity. Consequently, the 
Commission has fewer concerns regarding the equivalence of experience 
gained on simulation facilities and that obtained

[[Page 52658]]

on the actual plant. Additionally, simulator testing has changed 
considerably since the current rule was published in 1987. 
Specifically, the ANS 3.5 Standard Committee Working Group (WG) 
initiated a new, improved approach to simulator testing with the 
issuance of ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use 
in Operator Training and Examination,'' which employs a scenario-based 
testing philosophy that is inconsistent with the testing assumptions 
and requirements of the current rule. The Commission has reviewed this 
new industry standard, found it acceptable, and determined that the 
existing regulatory requirements contain prescriptive aspects that are 
impediments to industry adoption of the 1998 standard and are no longer 
necessary to support required training and examination programs. The 
Commission has also determined that the current requirements for 
facility licensee certification of plant referenced simulators and 
routine submittal of simulation facility performance test failures, 
with a schedule for corrections, are unnecessarily burdensome for 
licensees. As an alternate approach, the NRC can review plant-
referenced simulators for acceptability and performance test results of 
simulation facilities before the simulator facility is used for 
operating tests.

Discussion

    With this final rule, the Commission is updating its positions 
regarding the use, certification, and reporting requirements for 
performance testing of simulation facilities. The final rule amends 10 
CFR part 55 to take advantage of improvements in simulator technology 
and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees by:
    (1) Allowing applicants for operator and senior operator licenses 
to fulfill a portion of the required experience prerequisites by 
manipulating a plant-referenced simulator as an alternative to 
manipulation of the controls of the actual nuclear power plant,
    (2) Removing current requirements for facility licensee 
certification of their simulation facilities, and
    (3) Eliminating the necessity for routine submittal of reports to 
the NRC for review that identify any uncorrected performance test 
failures and a schedule for correction.
    Finally, the final rule facilitates voluntary licensee transition 
to an improved approach to simulator testing as described in industry 
standard ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in 
Operator Training and Examination.'' Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 
1.149, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator 
Training and License Examinations,'' endorses this standard and is 
being published in conjunction with this final rule.

Performance of Control Manipulations on the Plant-Referenced Simulator

    The current rule requires that applicants for operator and senior 
operator licenses perform five significant control manipulations that 
affect reactivity or power level on the actual plant. This final rule 
will allow applicants to perform the manipulations either on a plant-
referenced simulator or on the actual plant at the facility licensee's 
discretion. When simulators are used to provide for performance of 
control manipulations, the final rule requires that: (1) Simulator 
models replicate the nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics of 
the most recent core load in the nuclear power reference plant for 
which a license is being sought; and (2) significant control 
manipulations are completed without procedural exceptions, simulator 
performance exceptions, or deviation from the approved training 
scenario sequence. These requirements ensure that simulator experience 
replicates evolutions on the plant and that license applicants receive 
the same overall experience in safe plant operation as they would on 
the plant itself.
    The use of a plant-referenced simulator of appropriate fidelity for 
these manipulations is acceptable because of improvements in simulator 
technology and 14 years of successful experience in using simulators 
after the 1987 revision of part 55. Plant-referenced simulators provide 
operator training and realistic examination scenarios on reactivity 
manipulations, other normal and abnormal procedure operations, complex 
plant operations, and emergency operating procedure evolutions, 
including the management of simultaneous tasks and faulted conditions. 
This final rule will allow license applicants to fulfill a portion of 
the required experience requirements in the facility's plant-referenced 
simulator without disrupting the operation of the actual plant.
    During the public comment period, the Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) and several additional commenters recommended changing proposed 
Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(A), which would have required that the simulator 
model replicate the plant ``at the time of the applicant's operating 
test.'' The commenters stated that the words ``at the time of the 
applicant's operating test'' could unnecessarily restrict the 
candidate's opportunities to conduct reactivity manipulations. The 
commenters also stated that the proposed language would create a 
problem if a refueling outage occurs near the time the applicant was 
scheduled for the operating test or if the date of the operating test 
changed. The Commission acknowledges the concern that the proposed 
wording of Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(A) (Sec. 55.46(c)(2)(i) of the final 
rule) would have restricted the candidates' opportunities to conduct 
the reactivity manipulations. The Commission does not intend to be 
unduly restrictive with regard to the timing for conduct of the five 
significant control manipulations on a plant-referenced simulator. 
Therefore, the Commission has revised Sec. 55.46(c)(2)(i) of the final 
rule to require the plant-referenced simulator to ``replicate the most 
recent core load in the nuclear power reference plant for which a 
license is being sought,'' while deleting the words ``at the time of 
the applicant's operating test.'' It is the Commission's intent that 
the phrase ``most recent'' means the current core or if the plant is in 
a refueling outage, the core just previous to the outage.

Simulator Certification and Routine Submittal of Performance Test 
Reports

    The current rule requires licensees who use plant-referenced 
simulators to certify on NRC Form 474, ``Simulation Facility 
Certification,'' that their simulator meets Commission regulations. The 
current regulations also require that test documentation and test 
schedules be submitted quadrennially. Currently licensed power reactor 
facilities have licensee-certified, plant-referenced simulators and the 
NRC staff's experience has shown that the submitted quadrennial reports 
are of minimal value.
    The final rule eliminates current requirements in Sec. 55.45(b) 
for: (1) Facility licensee certification of their simulation 
facilities, and (2) routine submittal of reports to the NRC for review 
which identify any uncorrected performance test failures and a schedule 
for correction. Continued assurance of simulator fidelity is provided, 
in the final rule in new Sec. 55.46(d), by requiring licensees to: (1) 
Conduct performance testing and retain results for four years, (2) 
correct modeling and hardware discrepancies and discrepancies 
identified from scenario validation and from performance testing, (3) 
make the results of any uncorrected performance test failures available 
for NRC review, and (4) maintain the provisions for license 
application, examination, and test integrity consistent with Section

[[Page 52659]]

55.49. In addition, NRC reviews or inspections to ensure compliance 
with final rule requirements at simulation facilities will maintain 
safety without the unnecessary burden of certification and submittal of 
simulator performance test reports. If NRC reviews associated with 
operating tests for operator license applicants or inspections 
completed using the Requalification Inspection Procedure as part of the 
oversight process find that a plant-referenced simulator is unsuitable 
because it does not demonstrate expected plant performance or meet the 
requirement specified in items (1) and (4) above, then the simulator 
may not be used to conduct operating tests for operator license 
applicants, requalification training, or control manipulations until 
the simulator is made suitable. In any case, simulation facilities, 
including plant-referenced simulators, must additionally meet (2) and 
(3) of the requirements of Sec. 55.46(d) for continued assurance of 
simulator fidelity. Further, NUREG-1021, Revision 8, ``Operator 
Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,'' provides detailed 
policies, procedures, and practices for examining applicants for 
reactor operator and senior reactor operator licenses. NUREG-1021 
essentially ensures that simulator scenarios for examinations are 
completed without procedure exceptions or simulator performance 
exceptions.
    Facility licensees have trained licensed operators and applicants 
for operator and senior operator licenses on plant-referenced 
simulators that were certified in accordance with the 1985 edition of 
ANSI/ANS-3.5, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator 
Training and Examination.'' This national industry standard specifies 
full-scope, stand-alone testing of system models and simulator training 
capabilities as part of initial simulator acceptance testing. Facility 
licensees have continued to test their plant-referenced simulators 
during initial development and to submit test schedules and reports on 
a quadrennial basis. The industry's approach to computer software 
development and simulator testing has changed considerably since 1987 
through the issuance of the 1998 version of ANSI/ANS-3.5. The standard 
has moved away from continued full-scope, stand-alone testing of system 
models and simulator training capabilities toward a scenario-based 
testing and quality-control philosophy.
    For facility licensees that adopt the 1998 revised national 
standard, the final rule revision allows for a change in the type of 
performance testing from a prescriptive simulator testing program in 
the context of initial simulator procurement to a scenario-based and 
operability performance testing program. The final rule does not 
require facility licensees to adopt the 1998 version of ANSI/ANS-3.5 or 
to modify existing simulator support programs or practices. Because the 
final rule continues to require performance testing, facility licensees 
that do not adopt the 1998 revised national standard will perform the 
same type of performance testing as before. The final rule will allow 
facility licensees to adjust their performance test programs to their 
end-user needs, as defined by their accredited systems-approach-to-
training (SAT) programs, or to conform their existing simulator 
programs to the new revision of ANSI/ANS-3.5.
    This rule and the associated Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.149, 
``Nuclear Power Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Training and 
License Examinations,'' that endorses ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 without 
exceptions, reduces inconsistencies between the operational needs of 
facility licensee programs and the simulator testing requirements.

Clarification of Part 55 Definitions

    In 10 CFR 55.4, ``Definitions,'' the proposed rule would have 
defined performance testing as follows: ``Performance testing means 
validation, scenario-based, or operability testing conducted to verify 
a simulation facility's performance as compared to actual or predicted 
reference plant performance.'' During the public comment period, the 
ANS 3.5 Standards Committee WG recommended that the proposed definition 
be changed to eliminate the word ``validation.'' The Commission agrees 
with that suggestion and, further, the Commission has reconsidered the 
inclusion of the phrase ``* * * scenario-based, or operability * * *'' 
because it could be interpreted as limiting a facility licensee to the 
use of the ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 standard. Therefore, the Commission has 
retained the original definition of performance testing in the final 
rule as ``Performance testing means testing conducted to verify a 
simulation facility's performance as compared to actual or predicted 
reference plant performance.''
    The definition of ``plant-referenced simulator'' is revised to 
remove the last sentence and to relocate the substance of that 
sentence--a ``plant-referenced simulator demonstrates expected plant 
response to operator input, and to normal, transient, and accident 
conditions to which the simulator has been designed to respond''--to 
new Sec. 55.46(c)(1). This is a conforming change that provides clarity 
to the regulation. The first sentence of the definition remains the 
same.
    The term ``reference plant'' is defined in Sec. 55.4 as ``the 
specific nuclear power plant from which a simulation facility's control 
room configuration, system control arrangement, and design data are 
derived.'' This definition remains the same in the final rule and 
continues to provide clarification that for a simulation facility, a 
specific plant (unit) at a multi-plant (unit) site is the ``reference 
plant.'' The Commission realizes that the use of inconsistent 
terminology can be confusing and has made clarifications where 
appropriate in preparing the final rule. However, the Commission 
intends to re-evaluate the use of the term ``reference plant'' in the 
future.
    The term ``simulation facility'' is revised to include part-task 
and limited-scope simulator devices so that these devices can be used 
if a request were received and approved by the Commission for their 
use. The definition of ``simulation facility'' is also revised to 
remove ``the plant'' as a potential ``simulation facility.'' Use of 
``the plant'' is now addressed in the new Sec. 55.46(b). This is a 
conforming change that provides clarity to the regulation. The intent 
remains to allow facility licensees to use the plant, if approved, for 
the administration of the operating test and to meet experience 
requirements for applicants for operator and senior operator licenses. 
This conforming change is intended to continue to provide the 
regulatory flexibility that facility licensees have had since 1987.

New Section 55.46

    The final rule includes administrative changes to move the 
requirements for the use of simulation facilities from Sec. 55.45 to a 
new Sec. 55.46, ``Simulation Facilities.'' Former Secs. 55.45(b) (4) 
and (5) dealing with simulators have been separated from Sec. 55.45 and 
consolidated in the new Sec. 55.46. This is simply an administrative 
change to clarify the existing rule by separating requirements 
concerning simulation facilities from requirements in Sec. 55.45 
concerning operating tests.

Related Activities

    To implement this rule the NRC staff is also developing revisions 
to the process for initial licensing, requalification, and examination 
of reactor and senior operators, including updating NUREG-1021, 
Revision 8, and the ``Licensed Operator Requalification Program 
Inspection Procedure,'' (IP-

[[Page 52660]]

71111.11) of the reactor oversight process. Training of examiners will 
be conducted as appropriate. The NRC staff expects that these revisions 
will be completed one year from the date the final rule is published. 
Since the proposed rulemaking notice, the staff has determined that it 
is not necessary to revise and update NUREG-1262, ``Answers to 
Questions at Public Meetings Regarding Implementation of Title 10, Code 
of Federal Regulations, part 55 on Operator's Licenses'' and NUREG-
1258, ``Evaluation Procedure for Simulation Facilities Certified Under 
10 CFR 55.'' Instead of revising the NUREG's listed above, answers to 
questions from a public meeting/workshop concerning this final 
rulemaking will be posted on the NRC's homepage at www.nrc.gov in the 
Nuclear Reactors icon under ``Principal Reactor Regulatory Programs'' 
under ``Operator Licensing Program.'' Additionally, the answers to any 
questions will be available and may be viewed as discussed above under 
the heading ADDRESSES.

Revisions to Regulatory Guide REG 1.149, Revision 3

    A draft version of the associated regulatory guide (DG-1080, 
Proposed Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.149) that proposed endorsing 
ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 was made available for public comment (64 FR 45985). 
The final Regulatory Guide 1.149 is being made available concurrently 
with this final amendment. The regulatory guide is available for 
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or it may be viewed and 
downloaded electronically through the interactive rulemaking web site 
established by the NRC for this rulemaking, as discussed above under 
the heading ADDRESSES. Single copies may be obtained from David 
Trimble, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-2942, or by 
electronic mail to [email protected].

Analysis of Public Comments

    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 
2000 (65 FR 41021), and the public comment period ended on September 
18, 2000. The Commission received 15 comment letters on the proposed 
rule: 3 comments from individuals, 9 from nuclear power plant licensees 
(utilities), 1 from a utility organization (Nuclear Energy Institute), 
1 from a licensed operator organization (the Professional Reactor 
Operators Society (PROS)), and 1 from a national consensus standard 
working group (Standards Committee WG ANS-3.5). One letter with a 
request for an extension to the comment deadline was also received. No 
public comments were received from any State agency. No public meetings 
were held to discuss the proposed rule nor were any requested. However, 
the general status of the proposed rule was discussed at NEI Initial 
Operator Licensing Focus Group Meetings open to the public. The comment 
letters may be viewed on the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/rule.html, under ``NRC Rulemaking Web Site,'' at ``News, Information 
and Contacts for Current Rulemaking.''
    Twelve of the 15 commenters expressed support for amending the 
rule. Several of the commenters provided specific recommendations for 
changes to the proposed rule. The comments and responses were grouped 
into five categories: (1) General support of the proposed rule, (2) 
general opposition to the proposed rule, (3) reactivity manipulations, 
(4) simulator issues, including certification of simulation facilities, 
and (5) definitions and wording.

General Support of the Proposed Rule

    Comment 1-1: The majority of commenters supported the proposed 
changes to 10 CFR part 55, ``Operator's licenses'' to allow licensed 
operator candidate reactivity manipulations on a plant-referenced 
simulator as an alternative to use of the actual plant.
    Response: No response necessary.
    Comment 1-2: The Professional Reactor Operator Society (PROS) 
commented that the proposed rule would allow initial license candidates 
to perform required reactivity changes on a plant-referenced simulator 
is a welcome and acceptable change. PROS stated that the rule does not 
specify that license candidates cannot or should not perform 
manipulations on the actual plant. The amended rule will simply allow 
the requirement for performing five significant control manipulations 
that affect reactivity to be performed on either the actual plant or on 
the simulation facility.
    Response: No response necessary.
    Comment 1-3: One commenter stated that hands-on individual 
demonstrations of a reactivity manipulation on a simulator would seem 
to be a significant benefit of the rule change.
    Response: The Commission agrees.

General Opposition to the Proposed Rule

    Comment 2-1: One commenter stated that plant owners should not be 
able to shirk their responsibility for adequately training new 
operators. The commenter noted that there may be an enormous cost 
involved with the current rule and although it may be inconvenient, it 
does not justify diluting the licensing requirements to the point where 
a licensed operator does not even have to operate the real plant. The 
current cold license exceptions should not be used as justification 
because there are many extra controls and safeguards in place on a new 
startup. Another commenter stated that the industry needs clear 
guidelines, minimum deviations, and appropriate penalties for any 
noncompliance. The commenter also stated that safety dictates that 
initial license candidates are given the opportunity to move the plant 
without regard to real or perceived costs and that it has always been 
hard to put a dollar value on training until past mistakes are 
examined. The opportunity for actual reactivity manipulations reduces 
the stress-induced error rate, notably during transient conditions when 
clear decision-making counts.
    Response: The Commission believes that the level of reactor safety 
established under the regulations is adequate and that the rule does 
not need to be strengthened. The Commission believes that the proposed 
changes are justified based not on an extension of the cold license 
exceptions (cold license examinations are those administered before the 
unit completes pre-operational testing and the initial start up test 
program) in the existing regulation, but rather on significant 
improvements in simulation technology, including increases in computing 
capability, model complexity, and fidelity. In addition, the NRC staff 
has conducted and observed operator licensing and requalification 
examinations on plant-referenced simulators for approximately 15 years 
and has found that scenarios are performed on simulators in a very 
realistic manner.
    Further, this final rule does not change any of the training 
requirements of Sec. 50.120 or the specific licensed operator training 
and requalification requirements in Sec. 55.45(a) or Sec. 55.59. The 
candidates are still required to spend a substantial amount of time 
actually performing the duties of their particular positions in an on-
the-job training environment. In response to the concern that the 
industry needs clear guidelines, minimum deviations, and appropriate 
penalties for any noncompliance, the Commission believes that the final 
rule in conjunction with the regulatory guide endorsing the ANSI/ANS 
standard provides clear guidance to the industry.

[[Page 52661]]

Penalties for noncompliance are addressed by the Commission's 
enforcement program.
    Although the NRC's primary mission is to maintain adequate levels 
of reactor safety, it must also give due consideration to the principle 
of regulatory efficiency. Because the Commission has concluded that the 
proposed regulatory change will not affect the existing level of 
reactor safety, it would be inappropriate not to take advantage of this 
opportunity to adopt a regulatory alternative that will minimize the 
burden on facility licensees. The Commission concludes that there is no 
measurable net benefit in requiring facility licensees to have license 
candidates perform reactivity control manipulations on the plant for 
experience purposes when doing so can entail significant expense for 
the facility licensee and a measure of risk to plant operations and 
safety. Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this 
comment.

Reactivity Manipulations

    Comment 3-1: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and several 
additional commenters recommended changing proposed 
Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(A), which requires that the simulator model 
replicate the plant ``at the time of the applicant's operating test.'' 
The commenters recommended that the words ``at the time of the 
applicant's operating test'' be deleted because this could 
unnecessarily restrict the candidate's opportunities to conduct 
reactivity manipulations to a short time just before the operating 
test. The commenters also stated that this would be a problem if a 
refueling outage occurs near the time the applicant was scheduled for 
the operating test or if the date of the operating test changed.
    Response: The Commission agrees with this comment as discussed 
above in the ``Discussion'' section under ``Performance of Control 
Manipulations on the Plant-Referenced Simulator.'' This change has been 
incorporated in the final rule.
    Comment 3-2: The NEI and several additional commenters recommended 
that because plant-referenced simulators are modeled to one plant, the 
reference plant, the regulatory text should be clarified to indicate 
that the simulator modeling is for the referenced plant.
    Response: The Commission agrees with NEI's recommendation that the 
regulatory text be clarified to indicate that the simulator core model 
will replicate the reference plant for the simulation facility. This 
change has been incorporated in the final rule.
    Comment 3-3: The NEI and several additional commenters recommended 
that training objectives could be met if the models reasonably 
represent the reference plant at the time of the manipulations. 
Therefore, they recommend that Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(A) be changed to 
read: ``The plant-referenced simulator uses models relating to nuclear 
and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that reasonably represent the 
core load that exists in the nuclear power reference plant for the 
facility at which a license is being sought; and ...'' Another 
commenter stated that ``replicate'' could be misleading in a more legal 
application. Another commenter stated that in discussing the 
requirements of the simulator that will be used for control 
manipulations, the terms ``replicate,'' ``represent,'' and ``reasonably 
represent'' are used interchangeably.
    Response: The Commission does not agree with NEI's recommendation 
that the simulator core model ``reasonably represent'' rather than 
``replicate'' the core load that exists in the reference plant. The 
Commission believes that the terminology in the proposed rule is 
appropriate and consistent with ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, ``Nuclear Power 
Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training and Examination,'' the 
current industry consensus standard. It means that the plant-referenced 
simulator's nuclear and thermal-hydraulics models operate within the 
tolerances specified in section 4.1.3, ``Steady-State and Normal 
Evolutions'' of the industry standard. The commenter did not explain 
and the Commission does not understand why ``replicate could be 
misleading in a more legal application.'' On the contrary, the NRC 
staff believes that using different terminology in the regulation than 
in the industry standard would be more confusing and misleading.
    Comment 3-4: One commenter thought that the five reactivity 
manipulations should be ``evaluated'' manipulations. The commenter also 
stated that perhaps three of the five reactivity manipulations should 
be required to be evaluated by senior management.
    Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter's suggestion 
that the five reactivity manipulations should be ``evaluated'' 
manipulations and believes that this expectation is already addressed 
in the Commission's regulations and guidance documents. Section 55.4, 
``Definitions'' describes the five elements of a systems approach to 
training, including the requirement to evaluate the trainees' mastery 
of the objectives during training, that apply to all licensed operator 
training programs. Section 4.6 of NUREG-1220, ``Training Review 
Criteria and Procedures,'' that provides direction to NRC staff for 
reviewing training programs to verify compliance with the regulations, 
clarifies the Commission's expectations regarding the evaluation of 
tasks performed to ensure that the trainees master the actual job 
performance requirements. The Commission believes that requiring senior 
management to evaluate the reactivity manipulations would be overly 
prescriptive while adding little value. In practice, whenever license 
applicants are engaged in on-the-job training (OJT) in the actual 
control room, they have to be closely supervised and evaluated by the 
on-shift licensed operators. Generally, the more safety-significant 
activities, including reactivity and power changes, are more closely 
supervised and evaluated than others, regardless of whether they are 
performed in the actual control room or the simulator.
    The Commission encourages communication and cooperation between 
plant operations and training management when making determinations 
regarding the license applicants' mastery of the training objectives 
and job requirements and, ultimately, their readiness for the licensing 
examination. Under Sec. 55.31(a)(4), an authorized representative of 
the facility licensee, usually the plant manager or higher, must 
certify on the license application that the applicant has successfully 
completed the facility licensee's requirements to be licensed as an 
operator or senior operator. Based on the foregoing, no changes are 
warranted in response to this comment.
    Comment 3-5: One commenter indicated that it would appear that 
there are so many required reactivity manipulations for each operator 
that the time constraint alone would preclude all manipulations from 
being currently performed on the reactor. The commenter stated that the 
simulator must already be used extensively in meeting reactivity 
manipulations requirements.
    Response: Although it is true that simulators are already being 
used extensively for operator training and to practice reactivity 
manipulations, the control manipulations that are required by the 
regulations cannot be performed on the simulator, though, a few 
exceptions to this rule have recently been granted. These five required 
significant control manipulations, which affect reactivity or power 
level, must be performed by applicants, as trainees at the controls of 
the facility for

[[Page 52662]]

which a license is sought. The Commission believes that the proposed 
changes to the regulation will promote the original intent of the 
control manipulation requirement.
    Comment 3-6: One commenter stated that ``as a minimum, one 10 
percent power change should be mandatory prior to an unconditional 
license. If plant conditions warrant, a conditional license is issued. 
The condition is that an observed manipulation is performed. For those 
plants not in compliance with 100 percent of the fidelity issues as 
delineated by the guideline, the candidates must perform three 10 
percent changes, that would include startups and responses to reactor 
trips.'' The commenter also stated that they believed strictly 
requiring compliance with fidelity issues will ensure the identified 
fidelity issues are addressed.
    Response: The commenter appears to address two different issues: 
(1) The need for an explicit requirement that the control manipulations 
involve at least a 10 percent change and (2) where the simulator is not 
``100 percent'' compliant with fidelity requirements, then three 10 
percent changes must be accomplished by the operator applicant. 
However, no basis was provided for these two proposals. The Commission 
does not believe that either proposal is necessary. With regard to the 
first issue, neither the current nor the final rule address how much of 
a percentage power change is required for the control manipulations. 
The first proposal indicates that the commenter believes that the 
magnitude of a power level change must be at least 10 percent if it is 
to be a meaningful experience for an operator. The Commission believes 
that the magnitude of a power level change is a secondary issue. It is 
more important that a license candidate understand the operation of the 
systems involved and that the experience reinforce that knowledge and 
be conducted in an atmosphere as conducive to training as possible. A 
simulator setting in many ways is a more optimum setting for gaining 
this experience. To address the commenters' apparent concern, it is 
more likely that larger magnitude changes can be performed on the 
simulator than on the plant. The final rule does not alter the 
requirement for every license applicant to complete the control 
manipulations on the facility for which a license is sought, it simply 
gives facility licensees the flexibility to conduct some or all of the 
required manipulations on a plant-referenced simulator, but only if the 
simulator satisfies the NRC's core modeling and fidelity requirements. 
With regard to the second issue, the final rule does address the 
continued assurance of simulator fidelity issues in Sec. 55.46(d) and 
also requires simulator fidelity to be demonstrated so that significant 
control manipulations can be completed without procedural exceptions, 
simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the approved 
training scenario sequence.
    Comment 3-7: One commenter thought that in the past the Commission 
has allowed utilities to deviate from the intent of the reactivity 
manipulation requirements. This allowed the utilities to use a wide 
range of interpretations for the required reactivity manipulations. The 
commenter also thought that deviations had become the norm rather than 
the rule. The commenter stated that wholesale deviations from this rule 
cannot be made.
    Response: NRC expects that the rule is uniformly applied to all 
facility licensees. The Commission agrees that deviations cannot be 
made. Contrary to the commenters belief, the Commission does not allow 
anyone to deviate from the requirements without an exemption. 
Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this comment.

Simulator Issues

    Comment 4-1: A few commenters stated that an operator's license 
should not be issued based on only operating a simulator.
    Response: The Commission acknowledges that operating a plant-
referenced simulator is not identical to operating the actual plant 
despite all efforts to maximize realism and fidelity. However, today's 
plant-referenced simulators are of sufficient quality and fidelity that 
significant control manipulations can be completed without procedural 
exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the 
approved scenario sequence. The Commission does not believe that the 
rule will dilute the operators' licensing requirements. The rule will 
not change the requirement for every initial license applicant to 
complete five significant (power or reactivity) control manipulations, 
nor will it allow all of an applicant's training to be ``simulated'' 
because it does not change the requirement for every applicant to 
complete an on-the-job-training (OJT) program. OJT programs include 
hands-on experience in shift operations under the direct supervision of 
a licensed operator. Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to 
this comment.
    Comment 4-2: One commenter stated that the difference between 
operating a real plant and a simulator is ``stress'' and further noted 
that the Commission did not mention the difference in operator stress 
while operating the real plant versus a simulator. Another commenter 
stated that the fidelity of the simulator is not proportional to the 
induced stressed from real plant operations.
    Response: The level of stress experienced by licensed operators 
while performing the required significant control manipulations and 
other routine, controlled, and supervised evolutions are, in the 
Commission's opinion, insignificant when compared with the level of 
stress that they experience while responding to major plant transients 
(real or simulated as part of an examination scenario) that require the 
implementation of emergency operating procedures and response plans. 
Consequently, the Commission believes that there is little value in 
trying to distinguish between the levels of stress associated with 
routine control manipulations performed on a plant-referenced simulator 
and the actual plant. While undergoing OJT, the license applicants will 
still be given many opportunities to operate the real plant and 
experience ``the stress of knowing that the impact of a mistake may be 
much more dramatic than a call to `reset the simulator.' '' The NRC 
staff has conducted and observed operator licensing and requalification 
examinations on plant-referenced simulators for approximately 15 years 
and has detected no discernible difference in the operators' and 
applicants' demeanor while performing control manipulations in 
simulators versus actual control rooms.
    Comment 4-3: One commenter stated that the Commission should give 
very high priority to comments submitted by qualified operators and 
further stated that ``if qualified operators do not believe that plant-
referenced simulators are an adequate replication for this purpose, or 
indicate that this proposal is a step toward degrading operator 
training, or judge that safety in reactor operation is compromised, 
then the rule should not go forward without modifications that can gain 
the operators' support.''
    Response: The Commission agrees completely and has given high 
priority and serious consideration to comments submitted by qualified 
operators and to any concerns they have about this amendment. Only one 
formerly licensed senior operator and one instructor of licensed 
operators submitted comments in general opposition to the rule. PROS, 
who submitted comments on behalf of its members, portrayed the change 
to the rule as welcome and acceptable.

[[Page 52663]]

    Comment 4-4: One commenter thought that with more reliance being 
placed on the plant-referenced simulator for operator qualification, it 
would seem logical that greater attention is paid to ensure that the 
simulator is the best possible replication of the plant. If removal of 
current requirements for certification of simulation facilities and 
routine submittal of simulator performance test reports to the 
Commission is not consistent with greater attention, then the proposal 
seems self-contradictory.
    Response: The Commission agrees that, when a plant-referenced 
simulator is used for operator qualification, there must be assurance 
that the simulator is the best possible replication of the plant. The 
fact that this rule removes the current regulatory requirements for 
facility licensees to certify their simulator facilities and submit 
periodic performance test results to the Commission does not mean that 
the Commission is reducing the technical requirements for simulator 
fidelity. When simulators are used to provide control manipulation 
experience, the final rule requires the simulator to utilize models 
relating to nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that 
replicate the most recent core load in the nuclear power reference 
plant for which a license is being sought. It also requires simulator 
fidelity to be demonstrated so that significant control manipulations 
can be completed without procedure exceptions, simulator performance 
exceptions, or deviation from the approved training scenario sequence. 
These requirements should ensure that experience gained on the 
simulator essentially replicates that obtained from actual control 
manipulations on the plant. The final rule simply changes the nature of 
the reporting requirements for the performance test reports but does 
not eliminate the requirement for performance testing. No changes are 
warranted in response to this comment.
    Comment 4-5: One commenter noted that there are licensed operators 
and senior licensed operators who have never seen or responded to an 
actual reactor trip. They should not experience an actual trip for the 
first time during real plant operations. The stress-induced error rate 
would be unacceptable.
    Response: The Commission acknowledges that there may be licensed 
operators and senior operators who have never seen or responded to an 
actual reactor trip because many plants are experiencing record runs 
with unplanned reactor trip rates far below the levels seen several 
years ago. This simply highlights the importance of having high-
quality, high-fidelity, plant-referenced simulators that enable 
operators to practice normal, abnormal, and emergency evolutions (most 
of which would never be possible to perform on the plant) without 
procedural or simulator performance exceptions. Although there is no 
regulatory requirement to do so, the Commission believes that facility 
licensees assign most new and inexperienced operators to crews 
containing other operators having greater levels of experience. 
Moreover, the Commission has encouraged teamwork between control room 
operators and, therefore, in 1987, significantly revised its 
requalification examination process to focus primarily on the crews' 
ability to successfully accomplish those activities deemed critical to 
safe plant operation.

Definitions and Other Rule Wording

    Comment 5-1: The Standards Committee WG ANS-3.5 stated that the 
ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 Standard defines performance testing as, ``testing 
characterized by a comparison of the results of integrated operation of 
the simulation facility to actual or predicted reference plant data. 
Performance testing encompasses testing other than software development 
testing.'' Also Section 4.4.3 states, ``Simulator performance testing 
comprises operability and scenario-based testing.'' In Sec. 55.4, 
``Definitions,'' the proposed rule would define performance testing as 
follows: ``Performance testing means validation, scenario-based, or 
operability testing conducted to verify a simulation facility's 
performance as compared to actual or predicted reference plant 
performance.'' The Standards Committee WG ANS-3.5 recommends that the 
proposed definition be changed to read as follows: ``Performance 
testing means scenario-based and operability testing conducted to 
verify a simulation facility's performance as compared to actual or 
predicted reference plant performance.''
    Response: The Commission agrees that the proposed wording of the 
definition of ``performance testing'' (i.e., ``validation, scenario-
based, or operability testing'') may have caused some confusion. 
Further, the Commission has reconsidered the inclusion of the phrase `` 
* * * scenario-based, or operability * * * '' because it could be 
interpreted as limiting a facility licensee to the use of the ANSI/ANS-
3.5-1998 standard. Therefore, the Commission has retained the original 
definition of performance testing in the final rule as ``Performance 
testing means testing conducted to verify a simulation facility's 
performance as compared to actual or predicted reference plant 
performance.''
    Comment 5-2: One commenter stated that the terms ``plant 
facility,'' ``plant,'' and ``nuclear power unit'' are used 
interchangeably when discussing the requirement for control 
manipulations. For a multi-unit facility, the three phrases can have 
distinctly different meanings and ramifications on the actual number of 
manipulations that would be required. The use of ``nuclear power unit'' 
could be slightly different on each unit at the time of an operator 
license application due to staggered outages and design upgrade 
implementation schedules. The use of ``plant'' could be interpreted as 
one of the units of a multi-unit facility or as a ``facility.'' A more 
appropriate term would be ``reference unit.''
    Response: The Commission acknowledges the commenter's observation 
that the terms ``plant facility,'' ``plant,'' and ``nuclear power 
unit'' were used interchangeably when discussing the requirement for 
control manipulations. The Commission does not require that a plant-
referenced simulator reflect multiple unit configurations or that the 
control manipulations would have to be completed on each configuration 
separately. The term ``reference plant'' is defined in Sec. 55.4 as 
``the specific nuclear power plant from which a simulation facility's 
control room configuration, system control arrangement, and design data 
are derived.'' This definition remains the same in the final rule and 
continues to clarify that for a simulation facility, a specific plant 
(unit) at a multi-plant (unit) site is the ``reference plant.'' The 
Commission realizes that the use of inconsistent terminology can be 
confusing and has made clarifications where appropriate in preparing 
the final rule. However, the Commission intends to re-evaluate the use 
of the term ``reference plant'' in the future.
    Comment 5-3: One commenter stated that in discussing the testing 
that would be required by the Commission to take credit for a 
manipulation performed as a plant-reference simulator in the Statements 
of Consideration, the scope of testing is described as (1) to encompass 
verification, validation, and documentation and (2) developmental and 
verification testing. On the other hand, the proposed wording in 
Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(B) of the proposed rulemaking (65 FR 41021) 
describes the specific performance testing requirements as follows: 
``Simulator fidelity has been demonstrated so that

[[Page 52664]]

significant control manipulations are completed without procedural 
exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from 
approved training scenarios sequence.'' It is important to note that 
certain words with specific definitions in ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 (i.e., 
verification and validation) are not used in the rule itself. The 
commenter recommends that the Statements of Consideration use the same 
language as the rule itself.
    Response: The Commission acknowledges the commenter's observation 
that certain words with specific definitions in ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 
(i.e., verification and validation) were not used in the proposed rule 
and the recommendation that the Statements of Consideration use the 
same language as the rule itself. The intent of Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(B) 
of the proposed rule was not to establish specific performance testing 
requirements but to ensure that the significant control manipulations 
that are performed on the simulator are completed without procedural 
exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the 
approved training scenario sequence. It is important to remember that 
while the Commission has endorsed ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, it is not 
requiring facility licensees to upgrade their commitments and 
requirements with respect to simulator testing. Therefore, no changes 
are warranted in response to this comment.
    Comment 5-4: One commenter noted that Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(A) states 
in part that ``the plant-referenced simulator uses models related to 
nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that replicate the core 
load that exists in the nuclear power unit.'' Engineering and real-time 
numerical models contain approximations. Generally, neither reproduces 
physical processes exactly. Therefore, guidance identifying the level 
of modeling detail required and a definition for the term ``replicate'' 
need to be developed. The level of modeling detail required has to 
coincide with actual plant's response as seen by the operators. 
Paragraphs 4.1.3.1.3 and 4.1.3.1.4 of the 1998 ANSI/ANS-3.5 Standard do 
not provide any assistance. Additionally, no guidance is provided on 
rod worth, notch worth, SRM-IRM range performance, axial power 
distribution, radial power distribution, stored energy, fuel time 
constant, core coupling, etc., that are the actual plant responses that 
the operator sees. Also, older, coarser mesh models are less refined 
than the more recent wheel-up engineering look-alike models. Therefore, 
the commenter believes that guidance as to what level of modeling 
detail is acceptable to the Commission needs to be developed.
    Response: When the Commission developed the proposed rule, it 
purposely excluded prescriptive guidance on the level of modeling 
detail for a plant-referenced simulator because the NRC staff believes 
that section 4.1, ``Simulator Capabilities Criteria'' of ANSI/ANS-3.5-
1998, the latest industry consensus standard, provides adequate 
guidance in that area. The NRC staff believes that the concerns 
regarding paragraphs 4.1.3.1.3 and 4.1.3.1.4 of the standard and the 
specific parameters identified in the comment are unrelated to the 
proposed rule. Technical issues such as these should be brought to the 
attention of the Standards Committee WG ANS-3.5 for resolution. 
Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this comment.
    Comment 5-5: One commenter stated that clear guidance should be 
provided for multi-unit sites training on one simulator. In addition, 
the commenter stated that provisions have to be made that allow for 
training on a simulator that may not exactly replicate the reactor core 
in each reactor unit.
    Response: The Commission acknowledges the commenter's concerns 
regarding training at multi-unit sites and has clarified the final rule 
language to indicate that the simulator core model will replicate the 
reference plant for the facility. The NRC does not expect that a plant-
referenced simulator would reflect multiple unit configurations or that 
the control manipulations would have to be completed on each 
configuration separately. If a facility licensee wishes to use a 
simulation facility to simulate more than one nuclear power plant, it 
must be able to demonstrate to the NRC that the differences between the 
plants are not so significant that they have an impact on the ability 
of the simulation facility to meet the requirements and guidance of 
ANSI/ANS-3.5. Therefore, no additional changes are warranted in 
response to this comment.
    Comment 5-6: One commenter noted that under the ``Discussion of 
Proposed Rule Change,'' the statement is made that ``absent 
certification, assurance of simulator suitability would be provided 
through Commission reviews and validation of operating test scenarios, 
with review of performance test results, and uncorrected modeling or 
hardware discrepancies, if needed.'' Objective guidance should be 
developed for Commission's review of ``uncorrected modeling or hardware 
discrepancies'' because such a review could render the simulator 
unsuitable for examination.
    Response: As discussed in the proposed regulatory analysis attached 
to SECY-00-0083, the Commission is planning to revise and develop 
additional implementation guidance for use by the NRC staff in 
evaluating whether a plant-referenced simulator is suitable for use in 
conducting the required control manipulations and operating 
examinations. This effort is expected to include revisions of the 
appropriate sections of NUREG-1021, Revision 8, ``Operator Licensing 
Examination Standards for Power Reactors,'' and the Licensed Operator 
Requalification Inspection Procedure (IP-71111.11) of the reactor 
oversight process.
    Comment 5-7: One commenter notes that, as stated in SECY-00-0083, 
dated April 12, 2000, the current revision of the national standard, 
ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator 
Training and Examination,'' employs a scenario-based testing and 
quality control philosophy that is inconsistent with the testing 
assumptions and requirements of the rule. With the elimination of the 
certification process and NRC Form 474, the commenter did not 
understand where the linkage between the proposed regulatory change, 
Regulatory Guide 1.149, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for 
Use in Operator Training and License Examinations,'' and the ANSI/ANS-
3.5-1998 Standard is maintained.
    Response: The Commission believes that the rule will facilitate the 
voluntary implementation of ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 because it deletes the 
prescriptive requirements for simulator test performance and scheduling 
that were implemented in connection with the industry standard that was 
in effect at the time of the 1987 rule change. If those requirements 
had not been deleted, facility licensees would have had little 
incentive to revise their programs to be compatible with the current 
industry standard. As with most other NRC regulations, the linkage 
between 10 CFR Part 55 and ANSI/ANS-3.5, the industry consensus 
standard for nuclear power plant simulation facilities, is established 
by the associated regulatory guide, in this case RG 1.149. Eliminating 
NRC Form 474 does not affect that linkage.

Section-by-Section Summary of Final Amendments

Part 55--Operator's Licenses, Table of Contents

    In 10 CFR part 55, ``Operators's Licenses,'' the Table of Contents 
regarding subpart E-Written

[[Page 52665]]

Examinations and Operating Tests, is amended by reference to new 
Sec. 55.46.
Section 55.4  Definitions
    The term ``plant-referenced simulator'' is revised to remove the 
provision that ``a plant-referenced simulator demonstrates expected 
plant response to operator input, and to normal, transient, and 
accident conditions to which the simulator has been designed to 
respond'' from the definition and move it to new Sec. 55.46(c)(1).
    The term ``simulation facility'' is revised to include part-task 
and limited-scope simulator devices so that such devices can be used if 
a request were received and approved by the Commission for their use. 
The definition of ``simulation facility'' is also revised to relocate 
the ``the plant'' as a potential ``simulation facility'' to new 
Sec. 55.46 (b).
Section 55.8  Information Collection Requirements: OMB Approval
    NRC Form 474, ``Simulation Facility Certification'' no longer needs 
to be filed. Accordingly Sec. 55.8(c)(3) is deleted.
Section 55.31  How to Apply
    Section 55.31(a)(5) is revised to allow that the required five 
significant control manipulations that affect reactivity or power level 
to be performed either on a plant-referenced simulator or on the plant 
itself, at the facility licensee's discretion.
    By providing an option for facility licensees to use plant-
referenced simulators for control manipulations, the final rule makes 
unnecessary the need for current provisions in Sec. 55.31(a)(5) 
addressing the use of simulators for performance of control 
manipulations for facilities that have not yet completed pre-
operational testing and initial startup test programs and provisions 
addressing plants in extended shutdowns. Thus those provisions are 
removed.
    Additionally, acceptable simulator training scenarios involving 
control manipulations that affect reactivity are identified in 
Sec. 55.31(a)(5) for clarity by reference to current control 
manipulations and training scenarios described in Sec. 55.59. 
Consistent with previously issued regulatory guidance, the list 
provides examples of acceptable control manipulations, which are a 
subset of evolutions in Sec. 55.59 (c)(3)(i), and affect reactivity in 
a controlled manner and exclude those items on the list that are major 
transients and accidents.
Section 55.45  Operating Tests (b) Implementation--Administration
    Former Secs. 55.45(b)(4) and (5) dealing with simulators have been 
separated from the requirements for operating tests in Sec. 55.45 and 
consolidated in a new Sec. 55.46, ``Simulation Facilities.''
    Section 55.45(b) requires that the operating test for an operators 
license be administered on either a Commission-approved simulation 
facility, a plant-referenced simulator, or on the actual plant, if 
approved by the Commission.
    Facility licensees proposing to use a plant-referenced simulator 
meeting the definition in Sec. 55.4 are not required to submit a 
request for Commission approval of that simulator. For cases when 
facility licensees propose to use a simulation facility not meeting the 
definition of a plant-referenced simulator, the Commission will 
continue to require additional information to determine the 
acceptability of the simulator and thus, will require an application 
for Commission approval.
Section 55.46  Simulation Facilities
    The final rule implements administrative changes to former 
Sec. 55.45(b) to move the requirements to a new Sec. 55.46, 
``Simulation Facilities.'' The new section has one general and three 
implementation criteria as discussed below.
    (a) General.
    Section 55.46(a) explains that the purpose of this section is to 
set forth the requirements for the use of a simulation facility for the 
administration of the operating licensing operator test, and for the 
use of a plant-referenced simulator for fulfilling a portion of the 
experience requirements for applicants for operator and senior 
licenses.
    (b) Commission-approved simulation facilities and Commission 
approval of use of the plant in the administration of the operating 
test.
    Section 55.46(b)(1) provides that facility licensees who propose to 
use a simulation facility, other than a plant-referenced simulator, or 
the plant in the administration of the operating test under 
Sec. 55.45(b)(1) or Sec. 55.45(b)(3) shall request approval of the 
simulation facility from the Commission and that this request must 
include certain criteria as described below.
    Section 55.46(b)(1)(i) provides that the request for approval of 
the simulation facility, other than solely a plant-referenced 
simulator, must describe the components of the simulation facility or 
the plant intended to be used for each part of the operating test, 
unless previously approved. Section 55.46(b)(1)(ii) provides that the 
request for approval of the simulation facility, other than solely a 
plant-referenced simulator, must describe the performance tests and the 
results of the tests. Section 55.46(b)(1)(iii) provides that the 
request for approval of the simulation facility, other than solely a 
plant-referenced simulator, must describe the procedures for 
maintaining examination and test integrity consistent with the 
requirements of Sec. 55.49. Section 55.46(b)(2) provides that the 
Commission will approve a simulation facility or use of the plant for 
administration of operating tests if it finds that the simulation 
facility or the plant and their proposed use are suitable for the 
conduct of operating tests for the facility licensee's reference plant 
under Sec. 55.45(a).
    (c) Plant-referenced simulators.
    Section 55.46(c) requires that a plant-referenced simulator used 
for the administration of the operator licensing operator test or to 
meet the experience requirements of Sec. 55.31(a)(5) to demonstrate 
expected plant response to operator input and to normal, transient, and 
accident conditions to which the simulator has been designed to 
respond. Sections 55.46(c)(1)(i) and (ii) are revised to include the 
provision that a plant-referenced simulator is designed and implemented 
so that it: (1) Is sufficient in scope and fidelity to allow conduct of 
the evolutions listed in Secs. 55.45(a)(1) through (13) and 
Secs. 55.59(c)(3)(i)(A) through (AA), as applicable to the design of 
the reference plant; and, (2) allow for the completion of control 
manipulations for licensed operator applicant eligibility consistent 
with Sec. 55.46(c)(2).
    Section 55.46(c)(2)(i) provides that the plant-referenced simulator 
utilizes models relating to nuclear and thermal-hydraulic 
characteristics that replicate the most recent core load in the nuclear 
power reference plant for which a license is being sought. Section 
55.46(c)(2)(ii) provides that simulator fidelity has been demonstrated 
so that significant control manipulations are completed without 
procedural exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation 
from the approved training scenario sequence. It is the Commission's 
intent that the phrase ``most recent'' means the current core or if the 
plant is in a refueling outage, the core just previous to the outage.
    (d) Continued assurance of simulator fidelity.
    Section 55.46(d) requires that facility licensees which maintain a 
simulation facility shall: (1) Conduct performance testing throughout 
the life of the

[[Page 52666]]

simulation facility in a manner sufficient to ensure that the criteria 
of Sec. 55.46(c)(1)(ii), as applicable, and Sec. 55.46(d)(3) are met, 
and retain the test results for four years after the completion of each 
performance test or until superseded by updated test results; (2) 
correct modeling and hardware discrepancies and discrepancies 
identified from scenario validation and from performance testing; (3) 
make the results of any uncorrected performance test failures that may 
exist at the time of the operating test or requalification program 
inspection available for NRC review, prior to or concurrent with 
preparations for each operating test or requalification program 
inspection; and, (4) maintain the provisions for license application, 
examination, and test integrity consistent with Sec. 55.49.
Section 55.59  Requalification
    As a result of the changes to Sec. 55.45(b) that eliminate the 
simulator certification requirement, a conforming change to 
Sec. 55.59(c)(4)(iv) deletes the terms ``certified'' when referring to 
a simulation facility in this section.

Electronic Reporting

    The Commission is currently in the process of implementing an 
electronic document management and reporting program, known as the 
Agency Wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) that will 
provide for electronic access of many types of reports. Accordingly, 
there is no separate rulemaking effort to provide for electronic access 
or submittal of reports.

State Input

    Many States (Agreement States and Non-Agreement States) have 
agreements with power reactors to inform the States of plant issues. 
State reporting requirements are frequently triggered by Commission 
reporting requirements. Accordingly, the Commission sought State 
comment on issues related to the proposed amendment by letters to State 
Liaison Officers as well as by a specific request in the proposed rule. 
No comments on the proposed rule were received from any State agency.

Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. 
L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the 
use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. This final rule sets forth requirements with respect to 
training of operators, and removing current certification requirements 
for simulators. The Commission has determined that the industry 
consensus standard in this area, American National Standards Institute/
American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) 3.5, ``Nuclear Power Plant 
Simulators for Use in Operator Training and Examination'' is one 
acceptable means for complying with specific parts of the requirements 
of the final rule. Accordingly, Regulatory Guide 1.149, Revision 3, 
endorses the ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 as an acceptable method by which 
facility licensees might implement specific parts of this rule.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact and Categorical 
Exclusion

    The Commission has determined under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations 
in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 that this rule falls within the 
categorical exclusions of Secs. 51.22(c)(1), (2), and (3)(i) and (iii). 
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an 
environmental assessment is required.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule eliminates all the information collection 
requirements for Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-
0138. Because the rule will reduce information collection requirements, 
the public burden for these information collections is expected to be 
decreased by 120 hours per response. This reduction includes the time 
required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing 
the information collection. Send comments on any aspect of these 
information collections, including suggestions for further reducing the 
burden, to the Records Management Branch (T-6E6), U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet 
electronic mail at [email protected]. and to the Desk Officer, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0138), Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Public Protection Notification

    If a means used to impose an information collection does not 
display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct 
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information 
collection.

Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission prepared a draft regulatory analysis for the 
proposed rule to examine the costs and benefits of the alternatives 
considered by the Commission. Public comments on this analysis were 
requested in connection with the proposed rule. No significant comments 
were received. Minor changes have been made to the draft regulatory 
analysis to prorate the cost and benefit of the final rule over the 
average remaining years of operating life of the facility. The final 
regulatory analysis is available for inspection in the Commission 
Public Document Room or it may be viewed and downloaded electronically 
via the interactive rulemaking web site established by NRC for this 
rulemaking, as discussed above under the heading ADDRESSES. Single 
copies may be obtained from the contact listed above under the heading, 
``For Further Information Contact.''

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear 
power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within 
the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the 
Commission (10 CFR 2.810).

Backfit Analysis

    The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, 
does not apply to this final rule because it does not impose new 
requirements as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). The final rule changes 
constitute either permissible relaxations from current requirements or 
provide an alternative regulatory approach without changing substantive 
existing requirements. Therefore, a backfit analysis has not been 
prepared. Facility licensees would not be required by this final rule 
to change existing programs. The final rule permits the five 
significant control manipulations to be conducted at either the actual 
facility or a plant-referenced simulator. The final rule clarifies 
criteria on simulator fidelity assurance. The final rule also 
eliminates certification of simulation facilities and submittal of 
quadrennial test reports and schedule information.
    The final rule entails costs on the part of both the NRC and the 
industry for one-time revision of existing programs. However, the 
regulatory analysis suggests that industry could recover these costs 
and the final rule would be an overall burden reduction.
    As discussed above, the Commission has prepared a regulatory 
analysis for

[[Page 52667]]

the proposed rule that examines the costs and benefits of the proposed 
requirements in this rule. The Commission regards the regulatory 
analysis as a disciplined process for assessing information collection 
and reporting requirements to determine that the burden imposed is 
justified in light of the potential safety significance of the 
information to be collected.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, the Commission has determined that this action 
will have no adverse impact on small businesses and has verified this 
determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of 
OMB.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 55

    Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear power 
plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization 
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting 
the following amendments to 10 CFR part 55.

PART 55--OPERATORS' LICENSES

    1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 107, 161, 182, 68 Stat. 939, 948, 953, as 
amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 
2232, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 
1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).
    Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59 also issued under Pub. L. 
97-425, 96 Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61 also issued 
under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).


    2. In Sec. 55.4, Definitions, the terms Plant-referenced simulator, 
and Simulation facility are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 55.4  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Plant-referenced simulator means a simulator modeling the systems 
of the reference plant with which the operator interfaces in the 
control room, including operating consoles, and which permits use of 
the reference plant's procedures.
* * * * *
    Simulation facility means one or more of the following components, 
alone or in combination: used for either the partial conduct of 
operating tests for operators, senior operators, and license 
applicants, or to establish on-the-job training and experience 
prerequisites for operator license eligibility:
    (1) A plant-referenced simulator;
    (2) A Commission-approved simulator under Sec. 55.46(b); or
    (3) Another simulation device, including part-task and limited 
scope simulation devices, approved under Sec. 55.46(b).
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 55.8, paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) are removed and (b) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 55.8  Information collection requirements: OMB approval.

* * * * *
    (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in 
this part appear in Secs. 55.11, 55.25, 55.27, 55.31, 55.40, 55.41, 
55.43, 55.45, 55.46. 55.47, 55.53, 55.57, and 55.59.

    4. In Sec. 55.31, paragraph(a)(5) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 55.31  How to apply.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Provide evidence that the applicant, as a trainee, has 
successfully manipulated the controls of either the facility for which 
a license is sought or a plant-referenced simulator that meets the 
requirements of Sec. 55.46(c). At a minimum, five significant control 
manipulations must be performed that affect reactivity or power level. 
Control manipulations performed on the plant-referenced simulator may 
be chosen from a representative sampling of the control manipulations 
and plant evolutions described in Sec. 55.59(c)(3)(i)(A-F), (R), (T), 
(W), and (X) of this part, as applicable to the design of the plant for 
which the license application is submitted. For licensed operators 
applying for a senior operator license, certification that the operator 
has successfully operated the controls of the facility as a licensed 
operator shall be accepted; and
* * * * *

    5. In Sec. 55.45, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows.


Sec. 55.45  Operating tests.

* * * * *
    (b) Implementation--Administration. The operating test will be 
administered in a plant walkthrough and in either--
    (1) A simulation facility that the Commission has approved for use 
after application has been made by the facility licensee under 
Sec. 55.46(b);
    (2) A plant-referenced simulator (Sec. 55.46(c)); or
    (3) The plant, if approved for use in the administration of the 
operating test by the Commission under Sec. 55.46(b).

    6. Section 55.46 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 55.46  Simulation facilities.

    (a) General. This section addresses the use of a simulation 
facility for the administration of the operating test and plant-
referenced simulators to meet experience requirements for applicants 
for operator and senior operator licenses.
    (b) Commission-approved simulation facilities and Commission 
approval of use of the plant in the administration of the operating 
test. 
    (1) Facility licensees that propose to use a simulation facility, 
other than a plant-referenced simulator, or the plant in the 
administration of the operating test under Secs. 55.45(b)(1) or 
55.45(b)(3), shall request approval from the Commission. This request 
must include:
    (i) A description of the components of the simulation facility 
intended to be used, or the way the plant would be used for each part 
of the operating test, unless previously approved; and
    (ii) A description of the performance tests for the simulation 
facility as part of the request, and the results of these tests; and
    (iii) A description of the procedures for maintaining examination 
and test integrity consistent with the requirements of Sec. 55.49.
    (2) The Commission will approve a simulation facility or use of the 
plant for administration of operating tests if it finds that the 
simulation facility and its proposed use, or the proposed use of the 
plant, are suitable for the conduct of operating tests for the facility 
licensee's reference plant under Sec. 55.45(a).
    (c) Plant-referenced simulators.
    (1) A plant-referenced simulator used for the administration of the 
operating test or to meet experience requirements in Sec. 55.31(a)(5) 
must demonstrate expected plant response to operator input and to 
normal, transient, and accident conditions to which the simulator has 
been designed to respond. The plant-referenced simulator must be 
designed and implemented so that it:
    (i) Is sufficient in scope and fidelity to allow conduct of the 
evolutions listed in Secs. 55.45(a)(1) through (13), and 
55.59(c)(3)(i)(A) through (AA), as applicable to the design of the 
reference plant.
    (ii) Allows for the completion of control manipulations for 
operator license applicants.
    (2) Facility licensees that propose to use a plant-referenced 
simulator to meet

[[Page 52668]]

the control manipulation requirements in Sec. 55.31(a)(5) must ensure 
that:
    (i) The plant-referenced simulator utilizes models relating to 
nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that replicate the most 
recent core load in the nuclear power reference plant for which a 
license is being sought; and
    (ii) Simulator fidelity has been demonstrated so that significant 
control manipulations are completed without procedural exceptions, 
simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the approved 
training scenario sequence.
    (3) A simulation facility consisting solely of a plant-referenced 
simulator must meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section and the criteria in paragraphs (d)(1) and (4) of this section 
for the Commission to accept the plant-referenced simulator for 
conducting operating tests as described in Sec. 55.45(a) of this part, 
requalification training as described in Sec. 55.59(c)(3) of this part, 
or for performing control manipulations that affect reactivity to 
establish eligibility for an operator's license as described in 
Sec. 55.31(a)(5).
    (d) Continued assurance of simulator fidelity. Facility licensees 
that maintain a simulation facility shall:
    (1) Conduct performance testing throughout the life of the 
simulation facility in a manner sufficient to ensure that paragraphs 
(c)(2)(ii), as applicable, and (d)(3) of this section are met. The 
results of performance tests must be retained for four years after the 
completion of each performance test or until superseded by updated test 
results;
    (2) Correct modeling and hardware discrepancies and discrepancies 
identified from scenario validation and from performance testing;
    (3) Make results of any uncorrected performance test failures that 
may exist at the time of the operating test or requalification program 
inspection available for NRC review, prior to or concurrent with 
preparations for each operating test or requalification program 
inspection; and
    (4) Maintain the provisions for license application, examination, 
and test integrity consistent with Sec. 55.49.

    7. In Sec. 55.59, paragraph (c)(4)(iv) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 55.59  Requalification.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iv) Simulation of emergency or abnormal conditions that may be 
accomplished by using the control panel of the facility involved or by 
using a simulator. When the control panel of the facility is used for 
simulation, the actions taken or to be taken for the emergency or 
abnormal condition shall be discussed; actual manipulation of the plant 
controls is not required. If a simulator is used in meeting the 
requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section, it must 
accurately reproduce the operating characteristics of the facility 
involved and the arrangement of the instrumentation and controls of the 
simulator must closely parallel that of the facility involved. After 
the provisions of Sec. 55.46 have been implemented at a facility, the 
Commission approved or plant-referenced simulator must be used to 
comply with this paragraph.
* * * * *

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of October, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
J. Samuel Walker,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-26108 Filed 10-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P